The Hobbit Movie Thread

[H.F.]

This is great news, if it actually happens. I've always preferred The Hobbit to its more epic offspring. I agree the filmmakers will ditch the talking animals. Poor Smaug will probably lose all his humor, but perhaps the actor playing Bilbo can insinuate the proper tone in those scenes regardless. Too bad Ian Holm isn't younger. I hope they don't go as young as they did in LotR. Frodo I could buy in a younger incarnation, but Bilbo needs to be at least a bit older.

I'll trust the filmmakers, but ask a few hypothetical questions anyway:

1. What are the chance we'll see Gollum the blood-thirsty cannibal here, and not the same funny/pathetic schizo from the movies? Personally, I need to believe he's ready to chow down on hobbit flesh. He never quite achieved that level of menace in the LotR films for me. I really want to see Gollum as the "ghost that drank blood," ate infants, all that jazz. Although we don't find those events out until FotR (and never in the film), it would be neat to see them somehow hinted at in the prequel.

2. Would we actually see Gandalf and co. attack Sauron aka the Necromancer, sort of like they did with the scenes between Gandalf and Saruman in FotR? In that case, could there be two plotlines here: one dealing with Gandalf and Sauron, and the second dealing with Bilbo and Smaug?

3. How might they play out the climax of the movie? If memory serves me, doesn't Bilbo literally pass out at some point, and wake up when its all over?

[Kaz]

Clearly you're not as obsessed as some of us.

I even know the names of several Orcs, Riders of Rohan, and various other stuntmen and extras!

Wasn't one of the orcs also a pirate on the Black Pearl in Pirates of the Carribean? Don't know the guy's name (obviously), but he was a lieutenant or summin in the Orc army....just seemed kinda familiar in stance somehow.

[Evil Agent]

Bad news...! Just when it was looking good...

Last week I read more and more reports that The Hobbit would probably go ahead, with production beginning in 2008 or 2009. At this rate, when the movie is released it will have been about 10 years since Fellowship! Anyway, it was still good news, and the other good news was that the studio wants to make TWO MOVIES!

But just today, the bad news: New Line has apparently dropped Peter Jackson from the project, because he is still entangled in a law suit against them (for apparently not giving him proper profits on Fellowship), and Jackson has said he won't do the Hobbit until the lawsuit is settled. The studio is saying that they have limited time in which to begin The Hobbit, and so now they're apparently actively seeking a new filmmaker.

This brings up all kinds of concerns, like who the new director will be, whether he will be any good, whether they will still use WETA for effects, and actors like Ian McKellen for the roles...

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

[sic's mom]

In the article I was reading Jackson is in dispute with New Line and therefore won't be making the Hobbit. They want him to do the movie, but for the wrong reasons, according to Jackson. Ian McCelland and Andy Serkis both have said they won't do the movie without him, to show their loyalty to Jackson. I really hope they can get their problems resolved because I honestly can't see anyone else making this movie. But I guess as it stands now it is a no go.

[Gildor]

Fiddlesticks!



PJ come back!! ... Please.

[Miriamele]

Thanks for that link EA. Jackson's letter to the fans was really well written! It's just too bad that New Line has told him they "no longer require his services". I think that's a huge mistake. What other director could do the same job? Fans are not going to like it if The Hobbit has too much of a different feel to LOTR.

And if, as Sic's mom pointed out, McCelland and Serkis aren't going to do the movie without Jackson, then forget it! You can't have a different Gollum and you just can't have a different Gandalf!

I wonder though, if it isn't better that the project be a no-go. As Eurytus explained (last year, this is an old thread!) likely some elements of the story would have to be changed to make the movie more appealing for a movie audience, and especially to make the movie meld more with LOTR for the millions of fans of those movies. The Hobbit is such a magical book for me...I don't know, I just fear that a movie would destroy the magic. LOTR, imo, was more suited to movie-dom--and even then, the movie still can't match the magic of the book, for me.

Well anyway I guess there's no use speculating when the project hasn't even been started yet, and may never be. We'll just have to wait and see what happens!

[Banger]

What other director could do the same job?

I heard they're getting Brett Ratner, with Chris Tucker in the title role.



Seriously though, I can't see this movie being a success without Jackson and cohorts on board.

[Wayne Batson]

Okay, Mods, not sure where this should go--Tolkien forum, perhaps, but it seems the broader fantasy audience would be better.

But I am vexed, flummoxed, distracted, and dumbfounded by the news that New Line has basically told Peter Jackson and his team, "No thanks. We don't need you for The Hobbit Movie. We'd rather keep a little bit more money."

If you haven't read this amazing letter written by the genius director of the LotR movies, you can read it here: http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

Maybe this is sheer venting, but anyone else out there have some thoughts on this? Am I the only one who feels New Line just raised the bar on greed?

Is there any way that SFF can flex its muscle and tell New Line, No Jackson, No Hobbit???

Mannnn, I'm miffed.

[BrianC]

Actually, pretty glad at this because -- although Jackson would do a great job with the visuals -- I'd be worried that he'd screw around with the essential nature of the characters as he did with LOTR, i.e., turn Aragorn into a simpering, angst-ridden weakling.

[Wayne Batson]

Actually, pretty glad at this because -- although Jackson would do a great job with the visuals -- I'd be worried that he'd screw around with the essential nature of the characters as he did with LOTR, i.e., turn Aragorn into a simpering, angst-ridden weakling.

Have to differ with you there, Brian. I agree there were moments where I thought Aragorn was portrayed incorrectly--I think that was more PJ latching onto one element of Aragorn (his reluctance to be King) and developing it at the expense of others.

There are Tolkien purists who could find fault with any screen adaptation that could ever be made. I am a Tolkien purist, but not to that degree. In essence what Jackson did was nothing short of miraculous. To capture so much of the heart of LotR, the settings, the relationships---just an amazing feat to me.

I think to have anyone else do The Hobbit would create such a HUGE disconnect between that and LotR. Directors have such different styles and visions. Imagine what some other directors would do: Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Quentin Tarantino, etc. It would be so very different (maybe not bad in and of itself) that a mental block would exist in the vision of Tolkien's work.

And on the note of creative liberty: I for one would like to see some creative development of the "gray areas" of The Hobbit. I mean, actually seeing the White Council make war on the Necromance in Mirkwood---that would rock!

[jfclark]

As a lawyer, I think it's important to remember that in litigation, particularly disputes about contracts, rights, fees, etc., there is always more than one side to the story. Further, litigants tend to use whatever means available of painting their adversaries as the "bad guys"--including going to the public with e-mails to fan sites.

What's more, nobody has a monopoly on greed--after all, Jackson's lawsuit demands a very large amount of money on top of the earnings he's already made.

I don't know which side, if any, is "right." It's quite possible that what's really happening is that both sides are positioning themselves for further negotiation and that Jackson will ultimately find himself reinstated, as it were, and that his lawsuit will be settled giving him a payoff.

[BrianC]

Oh there's a lot more examples I could give, but yeah, I think we'll just have to disagree. Plus, there's less room for jiggering about with character in the Hobbit. And Jackson would do a great job with bringing Smaug to life . . .

(OT: the recent pictures of PJ look great. He's lost a lot of weight. Maybe he could play Thorin?)

[KatG]

Nope, this needs to go to the Tolkein forum or the Film forum. I'll put it in Tolkein for now and you can see how it goes.

For the record, I think Jackson needs to move on, and since he's turning himself into a major film studio at this point, including numerous fantasy projects, I don't know when he'd have the time to do the film anyway. Let somebody else take a shot, and since the Hobbit is more of a kid's book, maybe make it a little more kid-friendly. Though the purists would probably get out the torches on that. But Jackson did not do well with King Kong -- no director is bullet-proof, and most of the time, they do better if they try out something new, rather than rehash the same old franchise.

And when New Line and Jackson patch things up, as they will -- they always do -- Jackson can be involved as a producer and loan out his Hobbit village. It might mean we get a Hobbit movie sooner this way.

[Evil Agent]

In a way, I almost hope it turns out to be a colossal failure. I would love to see the studio mess up the good thing they had with LOTR. Hollywood execs just seem to be the most short sighted, narrow minded, disgusting greedy people. They don't care at all about the magic of these books, just the magic of big bucks.

I'd love to see a fan-boycott if they don't get PJ, but I know it won't happen. If the movie looks at all decent, I'm sure every Tolkien freak (including myself) will be lined up on opening night.

Still, I think I will cry and cry and sob and cry some more, if they don't have Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and Andy Serkis as Gollum. That will be a tragic, tragic mistake in my opinion, and the movies will never measure up unless they're on-board.

[JBI]

Nope, this needs to go to the Tolkein forum or the Film forum. I'll put it in Tolkein for now and you can see how it goes.

For the record, I think Jackson needs to move on, and since he's turning himself into a major film studio at this point, including numerous fantasy projects, I don't know when he'd have the time to do the film anyway. Let somebody else take a shot, and since the Hobbit is more of a kid's book, maybe make it a little more kid-friendly. Though the purists would probably get out the torches on that. But Jackson did not do well with King Kong -- no director is bullet-proof, and most of the time, they do better if they try out something new, rather than rehash the same old franchise.

And when New Line and Jackson patch things up, as they will -- they always do -- Jackson can be involved as a producer and loan out his Hobbit village. It might mean we get a Hobbit movie sooner this way.

Thats opinionated also. Personally I feel Jackson is the best director in the genre, and his King Kong was marvelous. The actual directing and things isn't what makes the movies take long either, the filming is actually done fairly quickly. It is the sound, sets, costumes, etc. That really drag the time it takes to flim/direct.

Of course, this is all too soon anyway. I don't even think there is a screenplay written yet.

This to many of us cinema fans is a giant upset, simply because Jackson was anamazing director, and created three amazing movies. The new Hobbit movie has the potential for greatness, but also can be like the original dune movie, a complete and total flop.